CET 97 DOI: 10.3303/CET2297087 Paper Received: 31 May 2022; Revised: 8 October 2022; Accepted: 13 October 2022 Please cite this article as: Sharaai A.H., Masri M.F., Rezaei Kalvani S., 2022, The Social Impact Study through the Life Cycle of Rice Production at Selangor, Malaysia, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 97, 517-522 DOI:10.3303/CET2297087 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS VOL. 97, 2022 A publication of The Italian Association of Chemical Engineering Online at www.cetjournal.it Guest Editors: Jeng Shiun Lim, Nor Alafiza Yunus, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš Copyright © 2022, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l. ISBN 978-88-95608-96-9; ISSN 2283-9216 The Social Impact Study through the Life Cycle of Rice Production at Selangor, Malaysia Amir Hamzah Sharaai*, Mohammad Firdaus Masri, Somayeh Rezaei Kalvani Department of Environment, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, Universiti Putra Malaysia amirsharaai@upm.edu.my In the effort to increase rice production in Malaysia, it may affect some parties or stakeholders, especially those involved in rice production. As this study implemented the cradle-to-grave research, the key stakeholders involved are those from the paddy plantation to the paddy process. Basically, three stakeholders are involved in rice production, which are the rice mill workers, rice farmers and the local communities. This study aims to analyze the social issues and social performances among the stakeholders involved in rice production using the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) method. The result of this study revealed that several social issues had been identified for each of the stakeholders. For example, the social problems for the rice farmer are income, health and safety, assistance with agricultural technology development, and living standards. The total social performance of the local community, with a score of 62 % shows good performance, 59 % and 53 % for workers and farmers, offer moderate performance. Overall, based on the result, the rice farmers have the lowest social performance compared to the rice mill workers and local communities. 1. Introduction Rice is the second most essential crop in the world after wheat, with Asia having the highest production and consumption of rice, including in the Southeast Asia region (Rajamoorthy and Munusamy, 2015). Rice is cultivated mainly on the Peninsular and Borneo Islands in Malaysia, with around 300,500 ha in the Peninsular and 190,000 ha in the Borneo Islands. The typical Malaysian resident consumes approximately 82.3 kg of rice yearly (Noraida and Hisyamuddin, 2021). Since then, paddy cultivation land has stayed consistent at an average of 677,000 ha through 2014, indicating a 0.2 % increase in paddy harvest area (Harun and Ariff, 2017). In the last four decades, Malaysian rice production has nearly doubled, going from 914,550 t in 1970 to 1,685,236 t in 2013, an annual gain in rice production is incompatible with consecutive years of declining productivity. The factors such as weather conditions, pest and disease outbreaks, and other factors all played a role in these events (Harun and Ariff, 2017). The government of Malaysia used some policies to increase rice security, such as increasing rice productivity and quality, increasing mechanization, and using rice by-products (Rajamoorthy and Munusamy, 2015). The Malaysian government focused on a self-sufficiency plan to fulfill their growing rice demand. In order to do that, Malaysia should sustain rice production and increase rice productivity (Najim et al., 2007). Every year, Malaysia implements various policies and programs to ensure food security, particularly in the rice industry. The government has defined rice supply security as having a ‘self-sustaining level’ of rice. The degree of self- sustainability has been at 65 % since the Fourth Malaysia Plan (National Agricultural Policy I) to the Ninth Malaysia Plan (National Agricultural Policy III). Malaysia has also reached a level of sustainability, it has not been able to export like its neighbours, Indonesia and Vietnam, which were formerly among the world’s major rice exporters (Che Omar et al., 2019). The government used policies to increase rice supply, such as increasing productivity and quality, increasing mechanization, and using by-products from rice, increasing rice production may affect some parties or stakeholders, especially those involved in rice production. Based on the existing Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), there are limited studies on S-LCA in Malaysia. Muhammad et al. (2019), Muhammad et al. (2015) and Haryati et al. (2021) evaluated social-LCA of palm oil production, Sharaai et al. (2020) accounted S-LCA of cocoa production. 517 One study by Hollaus et al. (2022) accounted social issue in a paddy rice farm in Malaysia. Only one study compared the social-LCA of paddy rice production in Malaysia and Iran (Kalvani et al., 2022) by focusing on modern and traditional agriculture. This research focused on S-LCA of paddy rice production in Selangor to elaborate on social issues. This study aims to evaluate the social performance of paddy rice production in Malaysia using social- LCA. This research can provide opportunities to enhance paddy rice production in terms of life cycle thinking. Basically, the study area of this research is in North-West Selangor Integrated Agricultural Development Area (IADA) only. Overall, there are a total of nine divisions in North-West Selangor Integrated Agricultural Development Area (IADA), where is the largest paddy rice production in Malaysia (Che Omar et al., 2019) which is identified as a granary area under the national agricultural policy for double paddy rice cropping because of using modern agriculture, high yield, and adaption irrigation facilities (Department of Agriculture, 2014). The total area of paddy rice production is 12,000 ha for the paddy rice production. This research will only focus on three divisions: Panchang Bedena, Bagan Terap and Sungai Panjang. 2. Methodology The S-LCA methodology consists of four phases: 1) goal and scope definition, 2) inventory analysis, 4) social impact assessment, and 4) interpretation (Figure 1). Figure 1: Social-LCA framework 2.1 Goal and scope definition This study aims to analyze the social issues among the stakeholders involved in rice production and to visualize the social sustainability level of farmers, workers at the mills and local communities. According to UNEP and SETAC (2009), all stakeholders and related subcategories are considered. The scope of the study is cradle-to- gate, which starts from the paddy plantation until rice packaging at the factory (shown in the dotted line in Figure 2). Figure 2: The S-LCA system boundary of paddy production 2.2 Social Life Cycle Inventory (S-LCI) The Social Life Cycle Inventory (S-LCI) is about collecting data from all unit processes within the system boundary, as mentioned in the goal and scope definition. Identifying the data to be prioritized for collection and collecting data for the specified stakeholders and subcategories of the social impacts are all part of this procedure (see Table 1). 2.3 Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment (S-LCIA) Basically, social life cycle impact assessment is the phase of the S-LCA that aims to calculate, comprehend, and evaluate the extent and significance of the prospective social impact or issue. Goal dan scope definition Social life cycle inventory (S-LCI) Social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA) Interpretation Paddy Plantation Rice Production Consumer Inputs Outputs Rice farmers Rice mill workers Local communities Social impacts 518 As a result, based on the objectives, there are two mechanisms for assessing the social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA). 2.3.1 Characterization The S-LCIA approach used in this study is the performance reference points approach. All social subcategories are selected from UNEP 2009 guidelines, and the social indicator is presented in percentages. 2.3.2 Weighting The normalized indicator result should be weighted for each social indicator. The weighting factor was calculated by sending back the questionnaires to experts to weigh each item. The following step was conducted to obtain the weighting factor (Prasara-A and Gheewala, 2019): 1. The exporter was asked to rate 1 for the least important item and scale the number 10 for the most important item. 2. The average of different items was used to assess the weighting factor for each social indicator. 3. After obtaining the weighting factor, the social indicator results multiply by the weighting factor to reach the social indicator. 2.3.3 Interpretation of the result The Sawaengsak et al. (2019) classification approach was used to evaluate the social performance of paddy rice production. Sawaengsak et al. (2019) used five classes in their approach as shown in Table 1. The weighted performance index between 0-20 shows poor performance, and the score between 80 to 100 shows outstanding performance. Table 1: The classification of performance based on Sawaengsak et al. (2019) 2.3.4 Data collection The quantitative method was used to collect specific data about the social issues among the stakeholders involved in rice production. The information about the applicable variable was collected during the Life Cycle Inventory. For this study, primary data was used to support the research, and a survey questionnaire was used, both face-to-face and online survey. A questionnaire is the most convenient method to collect data from all the stakeholders. Meanwhile, the on-call interview has been done with the local authority such as Integrated Agricultural Development Area (IADA) and the rice entrepreneurs to gain information about the population, the number of farmers in the paddy plantation and the number of workers at the mills. Also, a physical survey was conducted, which personally engaged the stakeholders to ask related questions regarding the research. By conducting survey research, multiple survey questions were asked and analysed. The number of respondents for the worker and local community are shown in Table 2. Table 2: The number of respondents from the stakeholder involved in the study 2.3.5 Questionnaire development The questionnaire serves as the main instrument to collect the data for this research. Basically, a questionnaire is a data collection tool in which a respondent answers a series of questions. There are a few steps in developing a questionnaire: gathering the background information, validity, and reliability. In this study the questionnaire from our previous study by Kalvani et al. (2022) was used. 2.3.6 Gathering background information First of all, the questionnaire’s goal and objectives were identified before gathering the information for the questionnaire. The research objectives and research questions determined the type of information collected. After the objectives have been determined, the following process is to gather the related information regarding Score Classification of performance 0 - 20 Poor 20 - 40 Fair 40 - 60 Medium 60 - 80 Good 80 - 100 Very good Stakeholder Number of respondents Worker 72 Local community 152 Farmers 152 519 the topic; thus, a literature review is needed. All the information regarding the stakeholders and the social issues has been precisely collected using a systematic literature review. The types of questions depend on the information that has been gathered. Likert Scale and open-ended questions were used for the questionnaire. 2.3.7 Validity and reliability test A questionnaire that has been drafted should be ready for a validity test. The level of systematic or built-in mistakes in a questionnaire is known as validity. The validity of a questionnaire can be determined by utilizing expert panels that investigate theoretical constructs. This type of validity will look at how well a theoretical construct’s notion is represented in a practical measure like a questionnaire. It is called translational or representational validity. It is vital to highlight that determining the content validity of a research instrument such as a questionnaire, particularly for research purposes, is critical (Bolarinwa, 2016). In this research, the validity of all items used in the questionnaire (content validity) was conducted to test whether the number of each item was sufficient or other items had to be added. In addition, consultation with the experts for improving the questionnaire was done. The experts evaluated the suitability and efficiency of the questionnaires. Eight validators in were professors from Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). Then, the content validity index of items (I- CVI) was conducted for each item to evaluate the validity of questionnaires by experts. The questionnaires were developed by inserting a validation box beside each item in questionnaires; then, the validators were asked to tick the 4-point Likert scale. The values recorded were as follows: score 1 = not relevant, score 2 = somewhat relevant, score 3 = relevant, score 4 = very relevant. I-CVI is evaluated as the number of panelists giving a scoring of 3 or 4, divided by the number of panelists. I-CVI is the proportion of agreement about relevant of each item. The I-CVI = 1 means that all panelists agree with the item. The I-CVI should not be lower than 0.78 for doing pilot test.The reliability of the questionnaire has been carried out using a pilot study test. A pilot study was conducted using the prepared questionnaire on appropriate respondents to determine the reliability and results of each question contained in the questionnaire form. Overall, 35 respondents (15 rice farmers, 10 mill workers, 10 local communities) participated in the pilot test that were not included in the actual sample. Cronbach’s Alpha test was used to determine the reliability of the questions as they were collected. It is essential to conduct Cronbach’s Alpha test to determine the suitability of the questions in the questionnaire and whether they can be used or not. The results of validity and reliability tests are shown in Table 3. Table 3: The result of validity and reliability test Stakeholder Items Content validity index Cronbach’s alpha Worker Discrimination 0.9 0.88 Child labour 1 0.78 Working hours 1 0.90 Fair salary 0.8 0.78 Employee benefits 0.8 0.87 Local community Job opportunity 0.8 0.90 Health and safety 0.8 0.96 Farmers Income 1 0.90 Health and safety 0.8 0.76 Assistant with technology 0.8 0.89 Living standard 0.9 0.83 3. Result and discussion 3.1 Social performance of paddy rice production Table 4 shows the characterized social performance of paddy rice production in Malaysia. The rice production shows good performance for workers, and 87 % of workers are satisfied with health and safety equipment. Only 34 % of workers are satisfied with their wages. The paddy rice production shows slightly good performance for community engagement and job opportunities. The result shows that 65 % of the local community agree that paddy rice farms provide job opportunities for local people. 55 % of the local community do not face any health and safety problems related to paddy rice. Around 45 % of locals reported air pollution from residue burning. The farmers do not show good performance for paddy rice production. Only 36 % of farmers are satisfied with their income since there is no stable market for paddy rice in Malaysia. 520 Table 4: The result of characterized social performances of paddy rice production Stakeholder Items Indicator Result (%) Worker Discrimination Workers who are not experienced discrimination 69 Child labour Workers who are not experienced child labor 87 Working hours Workers who are satisfied with their working hour 58 Fair salary Workers who are satisfied with their wage 34 Employee benefits Workers who satisfy from employee benefit 54 Local community Job opportunity Workers who are local community 65 Health and safety Local communities with no health and safety issue 72 Farmers Income Farmers who satisfy from their income 36 Health & safety Farmers who have not experienced health and safety issue 38 Assistant with technology Farmers who have access to the technology 63 Living standard Farmers who satisfy with their living standard 61 Figure 3 shows the overall social performance of paddy rice production for workers, local community, and farmers. The result indicated that the social performance of local community had better performance than worker, and farmer. Based classification by Sawaengsak (2019) social performances of workers and farmers shows the moderate performance. Figure 3: The overall weighted social performance for worker, local community, and farmer The total social performance of paddy rice production in Selangor in a previous study and this study was compared in Table 5. As it can be seen that the result of this study is slightly similar to the previous study by (Kalvani et al., 2022). The total social performance of farmer stakeholders is based on classification (Sawaengsak et al., 2019). The total performance of the local community in both shows good performance. The social performance of farmers and workers in this study was moderate. However, it shows good performance in this study because it only focused on three divisions of Selangor. However, a previous study concentrated on whole paddy rice in Selangor. Table 5: Total social performance of paddy rice production in Malaysia in this study and previous study 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 Farmers Worker Local community So ci al p er fo rm an ce Stakeholders Total social performance (This study) Total social performance (Kalvani et al., 2022) Farmers 53 (Moderate performance) 66 (good performance) Worker 59.7 (Moderate performance) 62 (good performance) Local community 62 (good performance) 64 (good performance) 521 4. Conclusion In conclusion, this study has managed to analyze the social issues of the stakeholders involved in rice production in Panchang Bedena, Bagan Terap and Sungai Panjang, Selangor. Based on the results discussed, among the three stakeholders, the rice farmers seem to have the lowest social level for all divisions. Therefore, the critical social issues that rice farmers need to consider are health, safety, and income. Of all the social issues, the health and safety issue has the most items that recorded a poor social level among the rice farmers. One of the reasons for this poor social level is due to excessive usage of pesticides that can harm the farmers’ health. In Malaysia, the usage of pesticides is still the first choice for farmers to control pest attacks conventionally. The limitation of this research was data collection since this study was conducted during the COVID-19, and there was movement control by the government. It is suggested to evaluate the environmental impact of paddy rice production by combining it with S-LCA in future research. Acknowledgement The authors received financial support from the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Putra grant GP/2020/9691600). References: Bolarinwa O.A., 2016, Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches, The Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal, 22(4), 195-201. Che Omar S.C., Shaharudin A., Tumin S.A., 2019, The Status of the Paddy and Rice Industry in Malaysia Key Findings of the Report, Khazanah Research Institute accessed 4.09.2022 Harun R., Ariff E.E.E., 2017, The role of institutional support in Malaysia’s paddy and rice industry, FFTC Agricultural Policy Articles, MARDI. Haryatia Z., Subramaniama V., Noorb Z.Z., Loha S.K., Abd Aziza A., 2021, Complementing social life cycle assessment to reach sustainable development goals - A case study from the malaysian oil palm industry, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 83, 331–336. Hollaus A., Schunko C., Weisshaidinger R., Bala P., Vogl C.R., 2022, Indigenous farmers’ perceptions of problems in the rice field agroecosystems in the upper Baram, Malaysia, Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 18(1), 26. Kalvani S.R., Sharaai A.H., Masri M.F., Yunus N.F.M., Afendi M.R., Uchechukwu O.B., 2022, Social impact and social performance of paddy rice production in Iran and Malaysia, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 27(8), 1092–1105 Muhammad K.I., Sharaai A.H., Ismail M.M., Harun R., Yien W.S., 2019, Social implications of palm oil production through social life cycle perspectives in Johor, Malaysia, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(5), 935–944. Muhammad K.I., Muhamad Pauzi M.F., Sharaai A.H., 2015, Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) for palm oil production in Malaysia, Advances in Environmental Biology, 9(23), 89–94. Noraida M.R., Hisyamuddin M.R.A., 2021, The Effect of Different Rate of Biofertilizer on the Growth Performance and Yield of Rice, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 757(1), 012050. Najim M.M.M., Lee T.S., Haque M.A., Esham M., 2007, Sustainability of rice production: A Malaysian perspective, Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 3(1), 1-12. Prasara-A J., Gheewala S.H., 2019, Social Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural Products: Experiences on Rice, Sugarcane and Cassava in Thailand. In: Muthu, S. (eds) Social Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes, Springer, Singapore. Rajamoorthy Y., Munusamy S., 2015, Rice industry in Malaysia: Challenges, policies and implications, Procedia Economics and Finance, 31, 861–867. Sawaengsak W., Olsen S.I., Hauschild M.Z., Gheewala S.H., 2019, Development of a social impact assessment method and application to a case study of sugarcane, sugar, and ethanol in Thailand, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(11), 2054–2072. Sharaai A.H., Zulkipli L., Harun A.H., Hui A.Y., 2020, Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) of cocoa production on local community and workers in Pahang, Malaysia, International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29, 1786-1797. 522 087.pdf The Social Impact Study through the Life Cycle of Rice Production at Selangor, Malaysia